From owner-freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jul 5 18:30:21 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-bugs@hub.freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-bugs@hub.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34C7016A41C for ; Tue, 5 Jul 2005 18:30:21 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [216.136.204.21]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D67643D45 for ; Tue, 5 Jul 2005 18:30:21 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (gnats@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j65IUKmO004926 for ; Tue, 5 Jul 2005 18:30:20 GMT (envelope-from gnats@freefall.freebsd.org) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.13.3/8.13.1/Submit) id j65IUKpM004925; Tue, 5 Jul 2005 18:30:20 GMT (envelope-from gnats) Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2005 18:30:20 GMT Message-Id: <200507051830.j65IUKpM004925@freefall.freebsd.org> To: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org From: Bruce Evans Cc: Subject: Re: bin/82720: <[patch] Incorrect help output from growfs.c and mkfs.c> X-BeenThere: freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Bruce Evans List-Id: Bug reports List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2005 18:30:21 -0000 The following reply was made to PR bin/82720; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Bruce Evans To: "David D.W. Downey" Cc: freebsd-gnats-submit@freebsd.org Subject: Re: bin/82720: <[patch] Incorrect help output from growfs.c and mkfs.c> Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2005 04:27:16 +1000 (EST) On Tue, 28 Jun 2005, David D.W. Downey wrote: > Thanks for responding. OK, I'm extremely new to patch submission (as you can > probably tell from the couple of goofs I made in the original submission). > > How would you like to see this best split out? Just name it, and it's done. > > I was thinking since it covers both growfs and newfs, as shown by the 2 > separate patches, that I needed to submit against both of those. Also, as > you mentioned, because it involved fsck and fsck_fss that the 'bug' might > need to be crossfiled against those as well. Decide if you want to give an example of how to do this in the fsck man page. The example might say to use fsck_ffs directly since that is simpler. Then change the utilities to use the same example. Bruce